1 2025:CGHC:18123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3058 of 2025 1 - Karthik Shivan S/o Kkp Shivan Aged About 32 Years R/o- Main Second Cross Chellikere, J.R. Layout, J.R. Arcade, Near Royal Cornor, Nath Kalyaan Nagar Banglore Karnatka ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pandri, Distt- Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aashutosh Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Objector Mr. Harsh Mandar Rastogi, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.06 of 2025 registered at Police Station : Pandri District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.24 17:16:42 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution story, the FIR is based on financial dealings relating to Q-Three Ventures Pvt. Ltd., involving dishonoured cheques and alleged non-fulfillment of business obligations. Complainant made a written complaint that the applicant is one of the director of private limited company namely Q-three Ventures. He along with other co accused offered him dealership of electronic goods, relying upon the same complainant has transferred the amount in to the account of the Q-3 limited company and not supplied the electronic goods and committed the present offence. 4. It has been argued by learned Advocate for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that the applicant’s company and complainant firm are indulge in commercial business transactions and prima facie, there is no ingredients shown in FIR related to the offence alleged and the applicant is in jail and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, she prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned State counsel and Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application and submitted that charge-sheet has not been filed in this case. On 04.03.2025, applicant has been arrested by police Station – Pandari District – Raipur, in connection with the crime bearing No.06 of 2025 under Section 420, 409, 120B of IPC and he further submits that the applicant have other pending criminal 3 antecedents with similar offences in Hyderabad, Benguluru and Kerala. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and also considering the fact that the applicant’s Company and complainant firm are indulge in commercial business transactions and applicant has already enlarge on bail in similar offences which are pending in Hydrabad, State- Telanagana, the applicant is in jail since and trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let applicant, Karthik Shivan, involved in Crime No. 06 of 2025 registered at Police Station Pandri Dsistrict -Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120B IPC of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 4 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali